Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin - English

This focus report examined the topic of knowledge transfer on three levels. Firstly, it looked at scientists’ assessment of the institutional conditions in the Berlin research area. In addition, various attitudes of scientists towards the relationship between science and society were surveyed. A third focus was the assessment of the extent to which scientists in the Berlin research area are already involved in knowledge transfer processes. Here, we used a new research tool that shows in which phases of the research process there is an exchange with relevant groups in society.

General conditions in the Berlin research area

The survey on the framework conditions showed that the majority of scientists believe that the Berlin research area is well positioned with regard to knowledge transfer. Over 66% state that the implementation of knowledge transfer is "rather good" or even "very good". At the same time, almost 46% of respondents would like more support in implementing knowledge transfer. Young researchers in particular indicated this need. It can be assumed that appropriate measures on the part of the institutions can meet such needs. In addition, it has been shown that scientists who are particularly concerned about the social utility of research results would like more support in knowledge transfer from their institutions.

However, it must also be acknowledged that in the context of the diverse tasks and objectives in science, the social utility of the knowledge produced is rated rather low by the scientists themselves. Although more than half of those surveyed stated that "societal impact" should be a "high" or even one of the "highest goals" within science, at the same time, more than 41% of those surveyed felt a "high" or even "very high" pressure of expectation on the topic. However, the social utility of research in their own scientific practice tends to be given lower priority. A good 53% of those surveyed gave this goal "no" or only a "low priority". The third mission does not have the same priority for individual scientists as it does for the organizations that have adopted this social mission for themselves. The individual scientists, on the other hand, feel overburdened in some cases. It can be deduced that it is not expedient for organizations to pass this goal on to scientists in a linear fashion as requirements, as is often the case when implementing performance criteria and incentives. Rather, an organizational strategy for knowledge transfer is needed in which the organization bears the main responsibility and involves the scientists only selectively, in a targeted manner, while at the same time providing them with framework conditions and a set of tools that effectively and efficiently support their own activities.

Attitudes towards the relationship between science and society

The absolute majority of respondents (83%) believe that scientists should actively participate in public debates. However, 63% of respondents believe that they should limit themselves to making statements about their own research. Just under 28%, on the other hand, believe that scientists should also contribute to public debates beyond this. This shows that while scientists consider it necessary to contribute scientific expertise to social discourse, this contribution is interpreted not in the sense of public intellectuals, who express themselves much more broadly, but rather with clear reference to the knowledge they have produced themselves. It is unclear whether the interviewees see more of a danger here that the "expert status" of scientists could be devalued if they also comment too often on other topics, or whether they do not trust (other) scientists to be able to contribute competently to public debates on topics outside their field.

The importance of the autonomy of science is controversial in the scientific community: While 45% are in favor of science retaining a high degree of autonomy from society, hardly any fewer respondents (39%) are inclined to say that science should be at the service of society. The remaining respondents take a neutral position here.

These "positionings" depend to an extent that should not be underestimated on the respective research subject. In particular, scientists who work more theoretically are in favor of the autonomy of science, along with those who are more dependent on technical infrastructures. Humanities scholars are also in favor of greater autonomy, while engineering scholars are less reluctant to put science at the service of society. In addition, professors are more in favor of maintaining a high degree of autonomy, while postdocs and predocs are less reluctant to put science at the service of society.

Inventory of knowledge transfer

When determining knowledge transfer potential, 88% of respondents considered their own research to be "fairly" or even "very relevant" for at least one of the non-academic areas surveyed. Of the remaining 12 %, only 29 people (2.6 %) stated that their research was "not at all relevant" for all of the areas surveyed, while the remaining proportion rated their own research as at least "barely relevant" in at least one area. Overall, the areas of "practitioners" (e.g. medical professionals, technicians, teachers), "politics" and "citizens" are most frequently mentioned as areas for which their own research is relevant.

The significance of knowledge transfer in research practice and the transfer potential must be considered against the background of a diverse research landscape with subject-specific research practices. Thus, the potential for knowledge transfer can vary greatly depending on the specific object of knowledge. The possible audience of knowledge transfer processes also varies depending on the subject matter. Accordingly, very different transfer profiles and potentials emerge for different subject groups. For example, the transfer profile of the humanities and social sciences is more strongly geared towards civil society and politics, that of the life sciences more towards practitioners (e.g. in medical clinics) and that of engineers most strongly towards companies from industry.

The determination of transfer potential in the form of relevance assessments served as the basis for measuring actual transfer practice. It is worth noting that the transfer potential has already been exploited to a large extent. Of all respondents, 73% are in contact with at least one non-academic social group; 55% are even in contact with two or more groups. Only 27% of respondents are not in contact with any of these groups at all.

Exchange within the relevant reference group is most widespread among practitioners. Over 78% of respondents state that they are in contact if they consider their own research to be "fairly" or "very relevant" for this group of people. Well over half of respondents who consider their research to be relevant for the media are also in contact with them (58%). The proportion is even higher for arts & culture (64%), business (66%) and civil society (68%). Only in the reference groups of politics (47%) and citizens (46%) is the proportion of those who consider their own research to be relevant here significantly lower. At the same time, the relevance of their own research is frequently acknowledged, especially for the areas of politics and citizens.

The exchange with social groups follows similar patterns in almost all cases. Interaction before the research process takes place much less frequently than during and after the research process. The media sector has a special position, as interaction as one-sided scientific communication only dominates in the media sector with just under 83%. In contrast, interaction with all other areas mainly takes place during the research process. It can therefore be concluded that, on the one hand, exchange does not take place everywhere where research is considered relevant, meaning that there is still untapped transfer potential. However, it is also far from being possible to speak of so-called "research in an ivory tower": exchange with relevant non-academic interest groups is quite widespread, with 73% of the transfer potential being exploited.

If, from the perspective of higher education or science policy, knowledge transfer activities to society are to be expanded or intensified, the various disciplines and research contexts with their respective knowledge transfer potential must be considered. We suggest starting with the relevance assessments of scientists and differentiating between the various social target groups. Such relevance assessments form a suitable starting point for developing appropriate activities in a targeted manner, taking into account the expertise of the scientists. 

It must also be considered that knowledge transfer is initially an organizational goal. The organizations themselves decide whether, how and under what conditions they pass this goal on to the individual departments and working groups or individual scientists, or whether they pre-structure at an upstream level and specifically separate the research contexts suitable for knowledge transfer from the less suitable ones. In this way, very effective (and visible) transfer policies could be implemented with individual, particularly targeted projects and research results (keyword: beacons of knowledge transfer). This would also minimize the pressure for those whose research results are less suitable for direct knowledge transfer and who feel unnecessarily pressured. 

In this context, it is also worth mentioning that a fairly large proportion of scientists classify the social utility of research results as an important goal within science, and are therefore motivated to contribute to a third mission. However, it is also precisely those who would like to see the organizations take on a supporting role here.

Conversely, in our opinion, it would not be very expedient to expect all academics to engage in certain knowledge transfer activities in the same way and thus transfer the universities' third mission as a requirement to all individuals equally, e.g. as quantified evaluation criteria. Such measures carry the risk of impairing research practices and content.